3 research outputs found
Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5â10 years, 10â20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery).
METHODS
A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearsonâs chi-square or Fisherâs exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (Îș) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility.
RESULTS
The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5â10 years: 0.69 vs 10â20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5â10 years: 0.62 vs 10â20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5â10 years: 0.61 vs 10â20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36).
CONCLUSIONS
The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system
C7 decancellisation closing wedge osteotomy for the correction of fixed cervico-thoracic kyphosis
Our objective is to report on the clinical and radiological outcome following a decancellisation closing wedge osteotomy for the correction of fixed cervico-thoracic kyphosis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. The only treatment available for severe fixed flexion deformity of the cervical spine in these patients is an extension osteotomy. Traditionally an anterior opening, posterior closing wedge osteotomy is performed with or without internal fixation. We describe a decancellisation closing wedge osteotomy of C7 accompanied by secure segmental internal fixation. Eight patients operated between 1990 and 2003 with mean age of 54 years and minimum follow up of 2 years were retrospectively evaluated. Restoration of normal forward gaze was achieved in all patients. No patient suffered spinal cord injury or permanent nerve root palsy. There was no loss of correction or pseudarthrosis at final follow up. C7 decancellisation closing wedge osteotomy supplemented with secure segmental internal fixation in experienced hands provides a safe and effective treatment for fixed cervico-thoracic kyphosis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Devi Prakash Tokala, Khai S. Lam, Brian J. C. Freeman and John K. Web
Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System
© 2022 The authors.OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participantsâ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.N